|
|
Post by soxnutt04 on Sept 27, 2008 19:29:23 GMT -5
I was watching videos on youtube and I stumbled upon these videos which I found very interesting. While it's weird that with so many topics the first discussion thread should be off topic this struck me as a good thing to bring up. At least watch the first vid before you post, unless you already have an unprecedented knowledge of these weapons. The first video is about the M-16 vs the AK-47. The second two are about the AK-47 and M-16 respectively. I want to know what you guys think, which weapon do you like better? Which would you rather have in war? Just your opinions of them in general. Personally I'd take the M-16 because it shoots faster, has farther range, and the ammo's lighter so you can carry more of it. Yeah the AK can but through walls better but I'd rather my ammo spent hitting people not walls. www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=CVfB3uxtB4w&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=_HdZ6WLrEnA&feature=related |
|
|
|
Post by barnaclebob on Sept 27, 2008 21:03:07 GMT -5
For close quarters or city combat like U.S. troops are seeing in Iraq I'd take an AK-47. Although for most situations the M-16 seems to be the more reliable weapon.
|
|
Jalapeno
New Member
Extra Spicy
Posts: 6 
|
Post by Jalapeno on Sept 28, 2008 18:05:51 GMT -5
Both weapons have their merits. For your average, run-of-the mill close range firefight, I would personally prefer the AK47. It has a slower rate of fire, true, but it also has the option for fully automatic fire, which is (in my opinion) an improvement on the three round burst fired by the M16. The AK also has a larger round, giving it more stopping power, and is more compact, lending itself to close quarters and short ranged operations because it is easier to maneuver and aim. However, the comparative lack of accuracy is a detriment at ranges beyond 250 meters.
Thus, for long range fire I would prefer the M16. It's accuracy is a huge bonus at ranges beyond 250 meters, and the fully automatic option is no longer crucial at longer ranges. The M16 is less suited to a longer term operation, since the AK is much more durable and easier to carry. The difference in ammo weight is non-crucial for transportation, and an AK with folding stock is quite easy to carry.
~Jalapeno
(By the way, I didn't watch the videos, so correct me if any of my points are wrong)
|
|
|
|
Post by barnaclebob on Sept 28, 2008 19:36:11 GMT -5
Nope you're right. You basically summed up everything right there that the movies had to offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by soxnutt04 on Sept 28, 2008 20:08:42 GMT -5
It's kind of funny thinking about it, we're talking about weapons both about 40-50 years old, and they're still being used as many armies main assault rifle. You'd think with human's seemingly innate need to kill each other as much as possible we'd have devised a better weapon for the common foot soldier; other than one that (in comparison to other, higher tech weapons) rather crudely flings hot lead at the enemy. I want to see some laser guns, starwars style! ![]() i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj77/alter_ego_alana/my lists/dudes/HanSolo.jpg[/img] |
|
Jalapeno
New Member
Extra Spicy
Posts: 6
|
Post by Jalapeno on Sept 29, 2008 18:29:50 GMT -5
Actually, better weapons have been developed. The United States uses M4A1 SOPMOD carbines for special forces units, and MP5's for close range fighting.
Russians have also designed the AK-107 (which is strictly better than the AK47) and the AK74, both of which use standard NATO 5.56 ammunition and are more efficient than the AK47. However, both American Carbines and Russian AK's are cost prohibitive, since the older weapons have a better set up production system, and are better proven in battle.
~Jalapeno
|
|
